About your Search

20121128
20121206
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
that was their only achievement in foreign policy, saying it over and over again, saying bin laden dead. so after saying that as a way to fend off all attacks on their otherwise feckless foreign policy, they now have the assassination of an ambassador, first time in 30 years, happening within a week and they have to find a cover story. i'm not saying there was a deliberate conspiracy from day one, but as this story unfolded, they saw a way to make this nonpolitical. one other context you got to remember, bill, that for the first three days after the benghazi attack, the media were concentrated exclusively on trashing mitt romney for a statement he made on september 11 about the cairo demonstration and the craven statement issued by our embassy in cairo as it was developing. so it would have been very logical for someone in the white house to say, look, the media is high on the trail of mitt romney. they're not interested in the real story. it is a perfect way for them to bash romney as they had on everything else. we can dependent away with this. let's go with the video story rather than that it
news shows to disseminate information about foreign policy to the american people. so to say that she should stay off news shows which are sunday which are informative to the public, yes, there is politics there, is incorrect. the president needs the chief foreign policy spokesperson for his administration and that's the secretary of state and then secondarily it's the u.n. ambassador. so i partially agree with the senator, they should stay out of domestic politics, but not when an issue like this comes up that the american people deserve some kind of an explanation. >> is it fair that she's caught in the cross hairs about what the intelligence was at the time and what was able to be passed along, disseminated to the public within that many days after the attack in benghazi? >> i think there's too much focus on the crosshairs. if the president is going to nominate ambassador rice, it should ob her qualifications. she has terrific qualifications. she's a road scholar, assistant secretary of africa when i was at the u.n. she was in her 30s at the time. she's been a distinguished ambassa
a long background of dealing in foreign policy issues. but she's also somebody who hasn't been willing to answer some of the hard questions that many of my colleagues have had regarding the situation in benghazi. and i think that demonstrates questions about her judgment and how she would be -- how independent she would be as secretary of state. that's obviously something very important in a secretary of state. >> let's talk about the fiscal cliff. the president and other folks are hoping for a deal by christmas. is it doable? >> i hope so. i think there's at least in my view an opportunity here for us to do something that's really good for the country. but it has to be -- it's got to be entitlement reform included in anything that we ultimately act on. we believe that in order to solve the country's fiscal solvency issues into the future, you've got to deal with the issue of entitlement reform. that's something so far the president has been reluctant to put on the table. so far what we've gotten out of him is this proposal to raise taxes which we think would be harmful to the economy.
because of a foreign policy decision. the wars weren't going to be fought. you aren't really saving money. it's a budget gimmick but it's not money you were going to spend. >> no, it's not a budget gimmick. the republicans propose it as a budget gimmick? >> sure, absolutely. >> then you should address it to them. >> but i'm addressing it to you. >> it's a basic challenge we face. this is the challenge we face which is how to bring the deficits down over time. it will require spending, savings and increase in rates and revenues. we think we can do that. we will work hard to do that and we have a good chance do it. no reason we can't do it. >> last question. can you promise we will not go over the cliff? >> no, i can't promise that. that's a decision that lies in the hands of the republicans that are now opposing increases in tax rates. if they recognize reality that we can't afford to extend those tax rates, then we have the basis for an agreement to be very good for the american people. >> and the president bears no responsibility, it's all up to the republicans? >> chris, and yourself th
are no ending the wars for budget purposes but because of the foreign policy decision, the wars were not going to be fought and you are not really saving money, it is a budget gimmick, money -- >> no, it is not, when republicans propose it is a budget gimmick. >> chris: sure, absolutely. >> address it with them. >> chris: well, i'm addressing it with you. >> again, it is a basic challenge we face, chris, the challenge we face, which is how to bring the deficit down over time, now, it will require spending savings, it will require increasing in rates of revenues and we think we can do it and will work hard to do it and have a good chance to do it and no reason we can't. >> chris: last question, can you promise that we will not go over the cliff. >> no, i can't promise that. that is a decision that lies in the hands of the republicans, that are now opposing increases in tax rates, if they recognize the reality, that we cannot afford to extend the tax rates we have the basis for an agreement that would be good for the american people. >> chris: and the president bears no responsibility, it is all
that he has on foreign policy in the republican senate caucus? mika and i talked to so many people over the past two, three years that say we want, republican senators, we want out of afghanistan but, you know what, we just sort of stay out of john's way. how many times have we heard that? >> a lot. it's disturbing. >> we hear it all the time. they stay out of his way. are they going to blindly follow and, again, i love and respect senator mccain, but i don't want my party to blindly follow him over a cliff on this battle especially if it's a personal one. >> well, on this battle it may be a personal one. i think the answer to your broader question is that republicans will continue to respect and follow his advice and syria is the next big issue that he is pounding away on. he was at a forum at the museum yesterday and crying out for american leadership on syria which means more engagement, more involvement. so there are a lot of big issues that he has huge influence on because of his experiences, his personal history. this issue i'm not so sure they'll follow him on. two of the three s
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)